David Lane — yet again — whines about the demise of Western civilization due to LGBTQ matters.
In an email sent Monday on behalf of American Renewal Project David Lane expresses outrage over the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the Barronelle Stutzman case. Come to think of it, Mr. Lane is perpetually pissed off. The man is utterly humorless.
David Lane is a Christian extremist and Republican operative. Lane’s objective is to turn America into a theocracy. Presumably Lane fancies himself as the supreme leader of the Council of Mullahs.
David Lane is also a professional victim at the hands of evil secular people. Extra points if he can claim victimization by LGBTQ persons or their allies. I suppose that we can add Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the list of victimizers and evil-doers. Barrett did not want to hear the case that has David Lane writhing in sanctimonious pain.
For all his posturing David Lane is not terribly imaginative. Nor is he — as Jesus’ proxy on earth — very original. Lane usually relies on talking points already in the wingnut echo chamber.
The subject email is titled: Our unrecognizable civilization …. Oh dear. Yet, again, the demise of Western civilization. As I wrote, Lane is not exactly ingenious. Moreover, Lane is dull and boring. His constituents would disagree.
I admit it. I don’t get it. Lane’s god is omnipotent but he lets stuff happen that David Lane doesn’t like. Rather than attacking LGBTQ people, perhaps Lane has to either pray more often or pray more artfully. Furthermore, if there is a god I doubt that he or she favors hateful hypocrites.
Getting back to the flagitious florist, David Lane has his own version of events. Christian fundamentalists confuse service with approval. Lane is explicit in that regard:
“Mr. Ingersoll’s money was good as long as Barronelle Stutzman approved of how his purchase would be displayed.”
Mrs. Stutzman’s plight consisted of either agreeing to provide a flower arrangement celebrating same-sex marriage, thereby conveying approval for something that God condemns, or politely declining services to Robert Ingersoll and Curt Creed, the couple to be wedded in holy matrimony, and recommending another florist in town.
There does not exist a means of “politely” refusing service. Moreover, recommending other florists (and I am not sure that Barronelle Stutzman did so) is irrelevant to the issue of refusing service. Our dignity depends, in part, on not having to shop around to see who will provide service.
Oh my. The turds had hit the turbines:
Surrounded by a “hostile and intimidating environment,” tyrannized by a militant state official enforcing a secular worldview, Mrs. Stutzman chose to stand.
Response deleted out of concern for civility.
I never knew that my sexual orientation required practice:
The caustic incongruity of the case was that Mrs. Stutzman had served and befriended practicing homosexuals Ingersoll and Creed for over 10 years.
That is incorrect in that Ingersoll was her customer. We have no way of knowing whether or not Stutzman was aware of his sexual orientation. Mr. Ingersoll’s money was good as long as Barronelle Stutzman approved of how his purchase would be displayed.
“Christian privilege is derived from Christian nation nonsense.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling to turn down Stutzman’s case ran counter to the American Founders, who made the Bible the foundation on which law making, enforcement and adjudication should be based.
Nearly 250 years ago — considerably closer to our nation’s founding — the Supreme Court ruled that the state can regulate conduct which is distinctly different from regulating belief.
More recently — 1990 to be precise — in an opinion written by the very pious Justice Scalia — the Court ruled that there are no religious exemptions to otherwise valid laws.
Furthermore, as is evident from the quoted text, David Lane is a promoter of Christian nation mythology. Christian privilege is derived from Christian nation nonsense. So is Christian supremacy.
“Apparently, to be perceived as advantageous to the nation, the ruling must have the approval of David Lane.”
Oh the disappointment:
Whereas Mrs. Stutzman’s case before SCOTUS required four Justices to agree to authorize a review of the case, only three voted in favor: Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas. This provides yet another example of the invalid argument that Republican presidents opting for the Federalist Society’s brightest and best full-spectrum conservatives will be advantageous to the nation.
Justice Gorsuch, who wrote the opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County (prohibiting workplace discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation or gender identity) might have wanted to hear the case to put an end to this “religious freedom” idiocy.
Furthermore, conservative justices are more inclined to respect precedence. Lane’s notion that doing so is “[dis]advantageous to the nation” is supreme imbecility. Apparently, to be perceived as advantageous to the nation, the ruling must have the approval of David Lane. My supreme mullah imagery was not out of line.
“It’s commerce, stupid. The exchange of goods and services for money.”
The competence of a justice of the Supreme Court is also subject to David Lane’s assessment:
Half of the nominations for the U.S. Supreme Court by Republican presidents since 1981 have been disappointments, turning out to be supporters of the Left, as is evidenced by the voting behavior of Sandra Day O’Connor [nominated by Reagan], Anthony Kennedy [Reagan], David Souter [Bush Sr.] and John Roberts [Bush Jr.].
Mr. Lane is part of a group of religious radicals who cynically claim that the Establishment Clause means something other than what it explicitly says.
At his core, David Lane is an anti-LGBTQ bigot:
It’s the culture, stupid. Praising and celebrating the supposed virtues of gayness, transgenderism, queerness, and their own special brands of diversity, equity and tolerance, secularism’s priests and priestesses currently dominate the intellectual, educational, economic, and vocational levers of power and influence in America. Meanwhile, the florist and those who stand for Biblical truth are portrayed as evil discriminators. In Mrs. Stutzman’s case, the deplorable state ruling dictated that she “attend, facilitate, and create custom floral art celebrating all marriages or none.”
“Attend” is not part of the equation. That is pure bullshit. Furthermore service in accordance with nondiscrimination laws is neither “praising” nor “celebrating” anything. It’s commerce, stupid. The exchange of goods and services for money.
“Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus need not apply.”
David Lane’s disapproval means that some folks are marxists. Labeling perceived enemies as Marxists has become popular in Republican circles:
Washington State’s AG Bob Ferguson, the secularized U.S. Supreme Court, and National Education Association [NEA] Marxists would do well to heed the Scriptural warning that “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God.”
I am sure that they are all profoundly anxious over that passage in Hebrews 10:31. Not only is Lane always pissed off but his god is always pissed off at people who do not agree with David Lane. I’ll take my chances.
“Keep in mind that most Christians do not agree with David Lane
Problems and solutions:
With God removed from it in the 20th century, public education is caught up in an absolute death spiral and beyond the possibility of rehabilitation.
Lulled to sleep by Satan, American Christendom can recover or come to life again by returning prayer to America’s churches, prioritizing disciples of Christ over converts, and relocating Jesus’ ekklesia Kingdom assignment of Matthew 16:18 from inside the church building to the public square outside.
If we are to make it through, every church all across America should nominate a pastor, elder, deacon, or congregant to run for local office – city council, school board, county commissioner, parks and recreation, etc. – in 2022, 2024, 2026, and thereafter.
Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus need not apply. The last paragraph summarizes Lane’s intent: Theocracy. Keep in mind that most Christians do not agree with David Lane.